Centering Racialized Educators in Collaborative Teacher Education: The Development of the Intersectionally Conscious Collaboration Protocol

Abstract

The intersectionally conscious collaboration protocol for teacher educators (ICC-TE) expands on existing models of collaboration by drawing from intersectionality as conceptualized by Black feminist theorists, collaborative teacher education, and frameworks for stakeholders to establish and maintain ethical, student-centered relationships. The ICC-TE promotes approaches that honor sociocultural differences, model collaboration, and support the development of these practices in preservice teacher education. The authors analyzed the responses of four Latina teacher educators at a predominately white teacher preparation program and teaching artifacts created while using the ICC-TE as they co-taught a special education course. As a result of this study, the researchers refined the protocol. All participants indicated the need for more training on intersectionality, for both teacher educators of color and their white colleagues. A connecting thread across all sources of data was how institutional culture and faculty morale shaped collegiality.

Keywords

collaboration teacher preparation practices and outcomes diversity teacher educators intersectionality

Faculty of color in U.S. teacher education programs are underrepresented (Busey & Waters, 2016; Ludwig et al., 2010), yet have great potential for studying, explaining, and teaching about persistent inequities in education. We use “of color” in the tradition of Black feminists who evoked the term for coalition building across distinct marginalized communities (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989). The phrase is not intended to collapse the range of experiences of all racialized teacher educators.¹ We instead recognize the diversity teacher educators of color (TEoC) embody, while acknowledging that they are likely to have firsthand experiences with the marginalizing effects of systemic racism, ableism, classism, and other forms of oppression across educational contexts (Dixson & Dingus, 2007). For example, three Latina teacher educators—one in special education and two in social justice education—articulated how their racialized and gendered experiences as P-12 students, teachers, and U.S.-based academics inform their critiques of how race and disability are framed in general and special education teacher education programs (Boveda et al., 2019). The TEoC situated in special education noted how she rarely had the opportunity to acknowledge her own marginalized experiences within special education discursive spaces; she found her colleagues in general education better engaged in explicit conversations about racism and other intersecting oppressions.

Researchers in general education communities, such as social studies, global studies, and multicultural education, have begun to attend to TEoC’s distinctive contributions to their fields (e.g., Merryfield, 2000; Suh & Hinton, 2015). The few empirical studies that explicitly examine TEoC primarily focused on their role as instructors and their pedagogical practices (e.g., Dixson & Dingus, 2007; Goodwin, 2004). One exception is a study that asked teacher educators about their philosophical orientations and beliefs about the purposes of education (Flynn et al., 2013). The researchers found that when compared to white respondents, “teacher educators of color tend to focus more on students’ need to learn about social and cultural issues and the challenges to social justice” (p. 62). The recognition of the substantive contributions of TEoC, both as pedagogues and scholars, is consequential for how knowledge is considered, produced, and disseminated to address the intersections of race, language, disability, and other differences.

As colleagues in general education have begun to highlight the unique experiences and work TEoC do with preservice teachers (see Picower & Kohli, 2017), the understandings that TEoC bring to special education, disability studies in education, and inclusive education are insufficiently recognized (Boveda & McCray, 2020); some voices in the field are calling for the explicit recognition of how TEoC’s marginalizing experiences matter to their research processes and teaching praxes (e.g., Hernández-Saca et al., 2020). Similarly, we argue that TEoC’s insights could help disrupt unremitting challenges in diversifying the education workforce, such as, understanding how university-based teacher education programming can better attract, prepare, and sustain diverse special education teacher candidates.

This article presents findings from one of a series of studies to establish the utility of the Intersectionally Conscious Collaboration protocol for teacher educators (ICC-TE), a tool developed to heighten the intersectional consciousness of faculty in collaborative dynamics across all aspects of their roles as teacher educators (e.g., with other faculty; while teaching, mentoring, and supervising students; while working with school and community partners). The tool is intended to be used as they prepare preservice teachers to address interconnected equity concerns, such as meeting the needs of students with disabilities who are emergent bilinguals, which cannot be fully understood or addressed when considered in isolation. Intersectional consciousness refers to an awareness of how schooling is implicated in multiple and interrelated systemic oppressions and how individuals’ sociocultural identities (e.g., disability, race/ethnicity, gender) are related to their educational opportunities and experiences. We have introduced the ICC-TE’s six elements (Boveda & Weinberg, 2020a) and made the most current version of the protocol accessible online (Boveda & Weinberg, 2020b).

This study is in dialogue with the growing literature on intersectionality in special education and inclusive education (e.g., García & Ortiz, 2013; Thomas & Macnab, 2019), as well as research about collaborative teacher education for inclusive practices (e.g., Blanton et al., 2014; Pugach & Blanton, 2009; Villegas et al., 2017). We begin with a description of our positionalities as researchers and roles as collaborative teacher educators. We then describe the theoretical underpinnings of the protocol and contextualize the greater project in which we developed the tool. TEoC informed, shaped, and provided feedback to refine the elements and open-ended prompts of the ICC-TE. As such, we specifically focus on the interview responses of three Latina teacher educators at a predominately white teacher preparation program. In addition, we analyzed data collected as we used the ICC-TE and co-taught a special education course. The findings helped to establish the utility of the ICC-TE, a protocol designed to facilitate collaboration between diverse university faculty members focused on meeting the needs of multiply-marginalized students.

Researcher and Teacher Education Positionality Statements

We joined the faculty of Arizona State University as assistant professors in the fall of 2017. As academics and researchers, Boveda is primarily situated in special education and urban education research communities, and Weinberg is situated in science and sustainability education. Although today we are teacher educators positioned in different research communities, we both started our careers as special education teachers. Furthermore, prior to collaborating, we each have respectively studied the role of educator collaboration within the context of teacher education (e.g., Blanton et al., 2014; Weinberg et al., 2020).

Boveda is a Black Latina woman (Afro-Latina) who comes from a working-class background with parents who had no formal education. She primarily spoke Spanish in her childhood home and has familial ties to the Dominican Republic. She draws from Black and endarkened feminisms to inform her research in special education, inclusive education, and university-based teacher education. Although she does not have a disability, she turns to disabled theorists, that is, theorists who consider disability as a salient sociocultural marker of their identity, to interrogate and disrupt how ableist ideologies appear in her work (e.g., Miles et al., 2017).

Weinberg is a white woman who was raised by college-educated, working-class parents in the Southern United States. She draws from transformative learning frameworks to inform her research on sustainability education to recognize the interplay among human action, institutionalized social practices, and natural ecosystems. She interrogates her privilege, ways of knowing, and relationship to disability to disrupt beliefs that perpetuate deficit orientations. As collaborators, we explore our diverging and converging professional and sociocultural identities.

Conceptual and Theoretical Influences of the ICC-TE

The ICC-TE expands on existing models of collaboration by drawing from intersectionality as conceptualized by Black feminists (e.g., Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1989), collaborative teacher education research for inclusive settings (e.g., Alvarado et al., 2019; Brownell et al., 2011; Pugach & Blanton, 2009), and frameworks for diverse stakeholders to establish and maintain ethical, student-centered relationships (e.g., Souto-Manning, 2019; Tobin & Roth, 2006). We first provide an explanation of the theoretical and conceptual influences of the ICC-TE, followed by a brief description of the protocol.

Intersectionality and Intersectional Competence

The ICC-TE is designed to help collaborators explore the interconnectedness of their own sociocultural identities as well as those of their collaborators and students. While some prominent voices lament that the lack of diversity in teacher education contributes to inequitable outcomes for students (Ladson-Billings, 2005; Sleeter, 2017), teacher educators’ sociocultural identities—including those in special and inclusive education (Blanton et al., 2014)—are seldom examined in the literature. As such, Element 1 of the ICC-TE protocol, is foundational to collaborations that are intersectionally conscious.

Intersectionality, a term first introduced by Crenshaw (1989), provides language to discuss the complexities in simultaneously considering sociocultural identities (Artiles, 2013). Of primary concern are the effects of multiple markers of difference. That is, intersectionality reveals the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as minoritized racial, ability, language, and gender identities as they apply to an individual or group, creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. Element 1 is most informed by intersectionality and by special education scholars who critique “inclusive education” that narrowly focuses on disability without attending to other aspects of student differences (e.g., Boveda & McCray, 2020; Cioè-Peña, 2017).

The impetus for a focus on intersectional competence in teacher educators is informed by the prior research of Boveda and Aronson (2019). Their study foregrounded perspectives of special education preservice teachers who self-identified as culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) and/or as preservice teachers of color (PSToC). The researchers found how “the perspectives of these preservice teachers elucidate the realities of embodied intersectionality,” (p. 257) and illuminated concerns about how special education teachers were socialized to have a unitary focus on disability. Notably, the language PSToC and CLD preservice teachers used to discuss students’ identities prioritized ability differences, mirroring findings in the special education teacher education literature (e.g., Young, 2016). Outside of specific and commonly cited issues in special education (e.g., disproportionate representation of Black boys in special education and assessments of English learners), PSToC and CLD preservice teachers in this study discussed disability separate from cultural or linguistic diversity (Boveda & Aronson, 2019). Despite this tendency to frame diverse learners primarily in terms of disability categorizations, the participants noted how they were accustomed to working with peers who did not share their minoritized identities. That is, they came to understand that navigating cultural differences was a requisite for their future collaborative roles. As such, they offered insights about how to include their own and others’ experiential knowledge as assets to collaborative efforts.

The ICC-TE builds on the Intersectional Competence Measure (ICM) created by Boveda (2016) as the first instrument intended to capture general and special education preservice teachers’ understanding of intersectionality as it relates to collaborative and inclusive education settings. The diagnostic ICM measures preservice teachers’ intersectional competence on eight subconstructs, including how P-12 schooling is implicated in the experiences of intersectionally diverse students (e.g., culturally linguistically diverse students with disabilities). In contrast, the ICC-TE—the focus of this study—is a tool that facilitates the development of intersectional competence within a collaborative teacher education context. The eight subconstructs of the ICM each align with one or more of the ICC-TE protocol elements (Table 1; Boveda & Weinberg, 2020a).

Table 1.

Alignment of Intersectional Competence Subconstruct with ICC Elements.

Intersectional competence subconstructs		ICC protocol elements
1	The ability to clearly identify sociocultural group categories and markers of difference (Arms et al., 2008; Artiles, 2013; Waitoller & Kozleski, 2013)	1
2	An understanding of the interlocking and simultaneous effects of multiple markers of difference (e.g., Annamma et al., 2013; Ferri & Connor, 2010; García & Ortiz, 2013; Natapoff, 1995)	2, 3
3	An understanding of the systems of oppression and marginalization that occur at the intersection of multiple markers of difference (Connor, 2006, 2008; Erevelles & Minear, 2010; Liasidou, 2013; McCall & Skrtic, 2009)	1, 2
4	The capacity to co-construct and negotiate professional roles and responsibilities when teaching students with diverse abilities (Blanton et al., 2014; Brownell et al., 2011)	1, 3, 4, 6
5	The ability to assess how structural forces (i.e., cultural, linguistic, and economic) influence the experiences of marginalized students and their families (McCall et al., 2014)	1, 6
6	An understanding that personal and professional beliefs about the value of diversity are distinct but interrelated; each is susceptible to change (e.g., Pohan & Aguilar, 2001)	1, 6
7	A belief of teaching as agency for social change (e.g., Enterline et al., 2008)	3, 5
8	Evidence of high expectations for all students (e.g., Liang & Zhang, 2009)	3, 4

Note. ICC = intersectionally conscious collaboration protocol.

Collaborative Teacher Education and Reflection

As Table 1 demonstrates, the literature on collaborative teacher education for inclusive practices informed the ICM subconstructs related to how educators meet the needs of diverse students with disabilities. Teacher education faculty shape opportunities for preservice teachers to develop professional identities and boundary work across discipline-specific domains (e.g., Blanton et al., 2014; Waitoller & Kozleski, 2013; Young, 2011). Furthermore, collaborations with families and other stakeholders also appear in this literature base (McCall et al., 2014), but the emphasis is primarily focused on collaborations between faculty and/or preservice teachers.

Although reflection is critical to improving teaching practices, it alone does not lead to self-awareness or valid knowledge construction (Fendler, 2003). Reflection using existing thought patterns can exacerbate deficit-based assumptions (Bean & Stevens, 2002; Smyth, 1992) and reinforce biases. On the contrary, reflection “directed at the structures to be transformed” and coupled with action can lead to transformations toward asset-based pedagogies (Souto-Manning, 2019, p. 10). Well-defined interactions and feedback challenge existing assumptions or schema and are essential for educators as they identify and act on opportunities for change (Milne et al., 2011; Roth et al., 2002). Particularly relevant for intersectionally conscious collaborations are reflective conversations that challenge power differentials by encouraging alternative perspectives (El Kadri & Roth, 2015), thereby offering possibilities to identify inequitable practices and schema (Tobin & Roth, 2006). Researchers who facilitate such reflections in teacher education laud their outcomes, yet there is a need to articulate processes for teacher educators to engage in their own collaborations. The ICC-TE provides a protocol for critical reflective dialogue for this purpose.

Protocols for educators offer structures and processes that support deep exploration and understanding through dialogue and “analysis of student work, artifacts of educator practice, texts relating to education, or problems and issues that surface during the day-to-day lives of educators” (Easton, 2009, p. 8). They not only provide structure for how collaborators can use limited time (e.g., Boudett & City, 2014), but also promote shared understandings for focused conversations unique to the aims of each protocol (e.g., analyzing student work, examining professional practices or instructional strategies, guiding effective discussions; Easton, 2009; National School Reform Faculty [NSRF], n.d.; School Reform Initiative, n.d.). In so doing, protocols can encourage educators to enter into and proceed with conversations otherwise evaded due to perceptions of divergent views or as a result of assumed group dynamics or norms that discourage alternative perspectives or critical reflection (NSRF, n.d.; Selkrig & Keamy, 2015). Consequently, the ICC-TE protocol can support the development of collaboration norms and habits that honor divergent points of view (McDonald et al., 2015; NSRF, n.d.) and lead to questioning of one’s underlying assumptions (Easton, 2009).

Methods

The ICC-TE builds upon the research on preservice teachers’ intersectional competence (Boveda, 2016; Boveda & Weinberg, 2020a), as well as collaboration in teacher education contexts (e.g., Blanton et al., 2018; Weinberg et al., 2020) to operationalize for teacher educators the intersectional competence that the ICM measures in preservice teachers. The intended use of the ICC-TE is to promote self-awareness and substantive collaboration to leverage each educator’s knowledge and skills while adopting a sociocultural and inclusive mind-set when planning for and providing instruction.

In disaggregating the responses of TEoC participants who informed the development of the ICC-TE and given the conceptual frameworks undergirding the protocol, which call for foregrounding the insights of those embodying intersectionality, we ask:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do TEoC’s intersecting sociocultural and professional identities inform their interpretations and perceptions of the ICC-TE protocol?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do the positionalities of TEoC influence their approach to preparing preservice teachers to address the multiple and intersecting needs of P-12 students?

Summary of the ICC-TE Protocol and Elements

The ICC-TE consists of six elements, each with eight to 12 open-ended, guiding prompts except for Element 1, which has 20 (see Boveda & Weinberg, 2020b for the full protocol). Together, ICC-TE elements promote approaches that honor faculty and preservice teachers’ differences, model collaboration, and support the development of these practices in preservice teacher education (Figure 1). Exploring the interconnectedness of markers of identity and the structural forces that influence educational experiences for oneself, collaborators, and students (Element 1) is foundational for establishing intersectional consciousness. Adopting an inclusive mind-set when making decisions about content and pedagogies (Element 2) and while reflecting on instructional choices (Element 3) enables collaborators to engage in deep and meaningful co-analysis of data and student feedback (Element 4). These accompany regular structured reflection to embrace complexity, challenge assumptions, and make actionable plans for more inclusive and meaningful learning experiences for students (Element 5). Finally, the protocol focuses on strengthening collaborations in ways that are fair and nonexploitative (Element 6).

Figure 1.

Elements of the ICC-TE.

While the elements are numbered, in practice, they need not be applied in a sequential fashion, again, with the exception of Element 1, which establishes the groundwork for intersectional consciousness. Rather, they are iterative and can be drawn upon in any order. For example, Element 4 is useful any time there are considerations of assessments and student feedback. The guiding prompts within each element are not meant to be static or prescriptive but instead serve to facilitate conversations that enhance awareness of intersectionality within collaborative teacher education praxis.

The ICC-TE protocol is unique with its comprehensive aim to cultivate self-awareness, promote substantive collaborations that leverage each educator’s knowledge and skills to deepen the collaboration, and enhance student outcomes by adopting an inclusive mind-set when planning for and providing instruction. Black feminist epistemology requires the centering and prioritizing of those historically marginalized in society, especially those at the intersection of multiple differences (Collins, 2000). Our protocol design efforts were congruent with intersectionality and Black feminist theory, as we purposely sought a diverse group of teacher educators to offer feedback on the ICC-TE.

Design

Before launching into large-scale implementation of the protocol for university faculty, we first needed to examine the utility of the ICC-TE to increase the likelihood that prompts for each of the six elements do in fact promote intentional reflection, discussion, and subsequent action. Interviews focused on the ICC-TE are part of a robust protocol development program to examine the utility of the protocol (Caspary et al., 2017)—the potential for its usefulness and the value of this tool to enhance co-teaching and collaborative practice in teacher education settings. Considering the continuum of collaborative teacher education models (Pugach & Blanton, 2009), at the time of the study, the research site programs fell between an integrated and merged model. That is, some preservice teachers were in elementary or bilingual education programs, with courses and experiences related to working with students with disabilities. Others were in a dual-licensure program and expected to receive certifications in special education and elementary education.

Interviews included eight teacher educators—five with expertise in special education, two in bilingual education, and two in elementary education—whom we identified as having background knowledge on educator collaboration, equity, and/or inclusive education practices. All participants self-identified as women. Five self-identified as white, one as Black, and three Latina. Additional minoritized identities represented include self-identified LGBTQ+, having mental health challenges or disabilities, nondominant religious affiliations, and “non-traditional” family structures.

Elements of the first draft of the ICC-TE were used in two separate courses where teacher educators co-taught special education content to preservice teachers. One course involved the authorial team and developers of the protocol. A second team included a Latina interviewee who co-taught with a colleague who did not participate in the larger study. In each of the two co-teaching teams, a Latina special education teacher educator: (1) co-taught with a white woman colleague, (2) reflected on how the ICC-TE supports educator collaborations, and (3) modeled Element 1 of the protocol for preservice teachers for an assignment about establishing intersectional conscious collaboration in the P-12 context.

Participants and Participant Profiles

For this study, we engaged in theory-driven, purposive sampling to focus on the responses of four Latina TEoC, inclusive of Boveda, a designer and early implementer of the ICC-TE. We excluded the Black, non-Latina interview participant from the current analysis as her role was to support faculty, and she did not work directly with preservice teachers. Empirical analyses anchored in intersectionality require considerations of identities not merely as additive, but constitutive of participant experiences (Bowleg, 2008). In our analysis of the Latina teacher educator responses, we looked at each participants’ sociocultural identities and collective professional roles in tandem. We collected data such as their age, sexual orientation, religion, hometowns, geographical ties to Latin America, marital status, disabilities, citizenship status, and prior roles within teacher education programs. On the contrary, in ethically presenting their responses, we are aware of the precarity they embody due to their minoritized status within a predominantly white institution. We also accounted for our collegial dynamic with participants and considered potential power differentials during data collection, analysis, and writing of the findings. For example, two veteran interviewees were at the institutions prior to our arrival and have held leadership positions, while one participant came afterward and served a clinical role.

Pseudonyms are used throughout, including in the brief TEoC interview participant profiles that follow. Again, our intersectional foci require that we consider multiple markers of identities. Melodi had been at the institution for less than 2 years; she grew up in the west coast and worked directly with cohorts of preservice teachers in the elementary and bilingual education program. Eileen, the most veteran of the group, has served various roles at the institution, including administrative positions. Throughout her tenure, she has taught various special education courses. She self-identifies as having a disability and as a parent of a child with disabilities. Eileen implemented the ICC-TE in a co-taught course and participated in a follow-up interview. Luna has served various administrative roles at the institution, with a strong emphasis on bilingual and multicultural education. All three women grew up speaking Spanish with their families. As teacher educators, all three include content about teaching CLD students. Eileen was the only TEoC in the focus group in which she participated, while Luna and Melodi were together.

Data Collection Procedures

For this study, we rely on data from three complementary sources: (1) semistructured interviews with three TEoC, (2) a follow-up interview with a special education TEoC and semistructured interview participant who used the protocol with a collaborator, and (3) teaching artifacts and researcher notes compiled as we (the authors) co-taught a special education course. Finally, to enhance the trustworthiness of our qualitative analysis, we invited the three TEoC who were interview participants to give feedback on our interpretations and the subsequent revisions made on the ICC-TE.

Semistructured cognitive interviews

The semistructured interview protocol followed a cognitive interview approach. Cognitive interviews can help establish how individuals understand the protocol prompts and whether they are willing to act (i.e., meaningfully reflect and respond) to each item (Husain et al., 2013; Lake et al., 2007). Therefore, the semistructured cognitive interview included comprehension, theory-driven, and hypothetical probes (Collins, 2015; D’Ardenne, 2015). Comprehension probes explored participants’ interpretation of each item, the consistency of the interpretations across participants, and the alignment of these interpretations with the developers’ intent. Theory-driven probes were designed based on our pre-existing knowledge of the challenges faced by educators, specifically TEoC, when entering into collaborative relationships and teaching in higher education settings. Hypothetical probes allowed us to explore how, in imagined scenarios collaborating with TEs, interviewee’s sociocultural and professional identities might be leveraged (or not) through the use of the ICC-TE.

This study includes the responses of three TEoC who participated in one of three focus groups. For each item, we asked a member of the focus group to “read the question or prompt aloud and tell us what it means to you.” Alternative interpretations were then solicited (i.e., “does anyone have a different interpretation?”). Next, we explored if participants had the necessary knowledge and understanding to respond and act, and their assumptions about others’ ability/readiness using questions such as “how would you respond?” and “what might you or others need to know to respond to that question?” Finally, we asked participants to speculate whether they could see themselves using this element with collaborators.

Unstructured interview

Seven months after the initial cognitive interviews, we invited Eileen for an unstructured follow-up interview. The structure of this interview allowed for rich descriptions about her experiences collaborating in teacher education and the extent to which the participant considered the ICC-TE to serve its purpose after initially engaging the protocol. This opportunity also served as an additional chance to member check the first round of our analyses and to solicit additional feedback on the ICC-TE. Eileen offered her assurances that the interpretations of her comments were accurate.

Developer’s implementation of the ICC-TE

We generated and recorded extensive notes and teaching artifacts (e.g., see Appendix A of Boveda & Weinberg, 2020b) while we reflected and refined prompts for the ICC-TE. As we co-taught and collaboratively conducted cognitive interviews, Boveda also consulted with Weinberg about two other class sessions she taught that semester. These conversations served as reference points for how students responded to the same course content, yet only had Boveda as course instructor and varied in regard to their embodied sociocultural markers of identities (Boveda & Weinberg, 2020b).

Analytical Procedures

We use qualitative tools to analyze TEoC’s responses to establish the utility of a protocol designed to enhance coteaching and collaborative practice in teacher education settings. As such, our intentions are not to generalize to the population from the sample with whom we are working (i.e., Latina teacher educators, TEoC). Qualitative research instead develops in-depth insights, where the emphasis is on the richness of the data (Bhattacharya, 2017). We analyzed and co-constructed understandings about the utility of the ICC-TE from the three complementary data sources described above: (a) semistructured interviews, (b) a follow-up interview with a special education TEoC, and (3) teaching artifacts and researcher notes.

Engaging with aspects of content (Krippendorff, 2018) and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we iteratively coded and analyzed data to answer our research questions. First, Weinberg coded cognitive interviews using an a priori thematic codes associated with each ICC element (i.e., establishing an intersectionally conscious collaboration, curriculum development and pedagogical planning, instruction, assessment and student feedback, reflection and cogenerative dialogue, maintaining productive, and ethical collaborative partnerships). During collaborative coding sessions, we grouped and classified the data into themes using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), identifying segments that reveal TEoC’s positionalities and influences on their approach to preparing preservice teachers to address the multiple and intersecting identities of K-12. We inductively coded and analyzed these segments through prolonged and iterative discussions until consensus was achieved, and we believed the themes were characteristic of the sentiments conveyed by participants. Finally, we each selected representative quotes to illustrate themes, and integrated these quotes into the findings.

After revising the ICC-TE protocol, we shared a revised version of the protocol and participant feedback was solicited. All three TEoC expressed their satisfaction with the protocol published on November 2020 and offered no further recommended changes. In addition, after disaggregating their responses for this study, we emailed participants the selected quotes and findings presented below. Participants agreed that we accurately represented their responses; the TEoC are aware of this article and eager for us to share their experiences and this study.

Findings

We begin by addressing Research Question 1 (RQ1), which relates to how the TEoC’s intersecting sociocultural and professional identities informed their interpretations and perceptions of the ICC-TE protocol. We highlight three themes identified in our analysis. First, participants noted an affective difference toward Element 1 of the ICC-TE when compared to their white colleagues. That is, TEoC were more comfortable openly discussing their own minoritized identities than white participants. Second, the TEoC drew on their experiences supporting minoritized students, both in P-12 and university settings, to interpret the ICC-TE questions or offer recommendations for protocol prompts. Third, the TEoC recommended explicit training on the ICC-TE, for themselves and especially for their white colleagues, before its use in practice.

An Affective Difference in Discussing One’s Own Sociocultural Identity

In this study, TEoC engaged with the ICC-TE in collaboration with or in the presence of at least one white colleague and another TEoC. The TEoC noted a contrast between the comfortability that white faculty, including Weinberg, initially had with sharing aspects of their sociocultural identities (i.e., Part 1 of Element 1). While one white cognitive interviewee, who also self-identified as a member of the LGBTQ community, openly resisted starting collaborations with Element 1, all TEoC agreed it was appropriate to begin with questions about educator sociocultural identities if collaborations were intended to advance equitable outcomes for students. Moreover, the participants were also forthright when discussing both the complexity and intersectionality of their Latinidad. All self-identified ethnically as Latinas, yet the TEoC had different understandings of themselves as racialized individuals. Boveda self-identified as a Black Latina woman, Melodi and Eileen as having “mixed racial” heritage, and Luna simply described herself as Latina. Melodi stated that she could not disentangle the languages she speaks from her racialized experiences. Eileen’s proximity to disability, as a mother of and person with multiple disabilities, shaped her disposition toward equity in education, especially as it relates to preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities and her framing of inclusive practices.

Leveraging Experiences Supporting Minoritized Students

Second, the TEoC drew on their prior classroom experiences supporting minoritized students, both in P-12 and university settings, to interpret the ICC-TE questions and to offer recommendations for protocol prompts. Eileen drew on her extensive experience with collaboration in teacher education to consider how prompts might promote generative spaces (i.e., entry points for the exchange of ideas), and reduce the potential for prompts to stop the flow of ideas between collaborators. Given her implementations of elements of the ICC-TE in her practice, Eileen made a clear distinction between surface knowledge and deep knowledge about intersectionality and collaborations. Even prior to her use of the ICC-TE, she described her tendency to dive deeply with collaborators right from the start. She acknowledged that it “sometimes puts people in places where they react negatively,” but found that asking people about their purpose and intentions helped her figure out how to approach collaborations. As a result of this feedback, we replaced language that implied potentiality (e.g., “how can collaborators”) with action-oriented language (e.g., “how will collaborators”) to convey the necessity of advancing the purpose of the protocol.

Beyond classroom practices, the participants drew from their understanding of the larger dynamics within the teacher education program while interpreting the protocol prompts. Participants discussed witnessing patterns among preservice teachers identified as struggling within the teacher education program. Luna named the disproportionate number of Black preservice teachers who get referrals to the college or university for disciplinary action or academic remediation, naming how most faculty and mentor teachers are white. She warned that faculty must think carefully about the sources of information gathered about students’ dispositions as well as their academic potential and abilities (see Part 3 of Element 1 and Element 4). Both Eileen and Melodi expressed concern that the conventional approaches to identifying sociocultural markers for students in a class might reinforce stereotypes or rely on biased sources. Although they did not offer alternative sources for learning about preservice teachers, they speculated and offered examples of how colleagues have made assumptions about students’ backgrounds. Relatedly, they questioned the reliability of a students’ academic standing, referrals to university intervention services, or performance on professionalism rubrics for assessing their potential to teach, since they had seen minoritized preservice teachers disproportionately penalized. Melodi described that she “can’t erase the numbers of how the [minoritized preservice teacher] population is targeted for [program- and college- level disciplinary intervention].” These insights resulted in revisions to the ICC-TE.

Need for Explicit Training on Intersectional Consciousness

In both their interpretations and visualizations of their use of the ICC-TE in future collaborations, the TEoC insisted on the need for more professional development for themselves and especially for their colleagues. Participants agreed that extensive examples of sociocultural categories should be embedded in the protocol, with dominant and nondominant markers enumerated for each. We therefore created and included artifacts from our co-teaching experiences and included these in the revised protocol (Boveda & Weinberg, 2020b).

Eileen indicated that the protocol must not be used for the sake of “feeling good” but for improving outcomes for students by equipping teacher educators to create more inclusive and affirming spaces for preservice teachers. She expressed concerns about colleagues potentially teaching about intersectional consciousness to students in a “decontextualized” way. She indicated that when she and her collaborator began talking about sociocultural markers, their students made statements like,

“I have no idea what this is talking about Dr. [Eileen].” So we deconstruct it — with your research, I aligned content from your [Boveda] article, last time I met with them and we went through it and said, this is why you did the first one. This is why you’re doing the second part. This is the purpose it serves. Once I had those highlighted aspects they really got into it a lot deeper and they understood why they were doing it and the outcome it was going to be for them. Not for the sake of feeling good.

Luna had similar concerns and cautioned about the potential co-opting of equity language to maintain the status quo:

I think that because these things are not addressed and they’re not talked about among faculty. . . that’s why we don’t have any movement. We don’t have any progress and we just keep on going in this circular pattern because these things are not being identified nor is anybody trying to understand them in deeper ways. So it’s this idea of co-opting words and the ideas of words . . . equity in social justice . . . . I know we don’t talk about these things.

In addition to how their professional and sociocultural identities influence their interpretations of the ICC-TE, the positionalities of TEoC shape how they discussed their approach to preparing preservice teachers to address the multiple and intersecting needs of P-12 students (RQ2). The following themes were present in their responses: (a) connections between their positionalities and their professional trajectories into teacher education; (b) the bravery required in advocating for multiply-marginilized students; and (c) the role that institutional culture plays in shaping teacher education faculty collaborations around equity and inclusion.

Intertwinement of Professional Trajectory and Sociocultural Identities

Throughout all phases of the study, TEoC, without hesitation, described the influence of their sociocultural identities on their professional trajectories. For example, Luna went beyond a description of her own PK-12 schooling to explain how her experiences and identity influenced her professional decisions, trajectory, and commitments. Luna entered teaching “because it helped me understand that I was giving back to the community that I came from,” and this commitment was deepened as she became exposed to critical educational theorists.

While the participants indicated a sense of dignity and love for their heritage, the TEoC also shared how marginalizing experiences in their schooling shaped their advocacy of both preservice teachers and P-12 students. Melodi, for example, described herself as an academically successful P-12 student who, nonetheless, had an “antagonistic” dynamic with school, teachers, and counselors. Luna described feeling conflicted about her pursuits while her mother supported their family as “the guilt of being in school with my mom struggling trying to pay bills.” Sharing about her intersecting sociocultural markers and experiences as a student, PK-12 teacher, and TEoC, Luna described

all these things in terms of gatekeeping. I remember my first semester . . . I got introduced to Paulo Freire in my first semester of my PhD program . . . I remember being frustrated and upset that I waited so long to be exposed to that. And then, too, I saw my life completely differently. I saw all these ideas of. . . these structures, these barriers that are put in place, and I always thought it was just me. That it was my situation . . . . All these things that just made me want to go back to my eighth grade students and give them those ideas and those ways of knowing so much sooner than when I started to develop those.

These responses reinforced the importance of considering pedagogical content and who is positioned as experts in courses and activities (Element 2).

Creating Brave Spaces for Minortized Students

The TEoC discussed how they intentionally created safe and brave environments for students and invited input from preservice teachers and colleagues embodying minoritized identities. In response to probing questions about advocating for PSToC, Eileen described watching colleagues who felt “cautious to say anything because otherwise, it is used against you. . . you’re projected as somebody that is stirring up students.” She followed this by twice asserting, “I’m not scared.” She simultaneously discussed how she promoted a safe learning environment, elicited student feedback, and co-constructed what constitutes both student engagement and student success for preservice teachers. As Eileen pointed out, student engagement is very entangled with sociocultural markers, personalities, and dispositions. Relatedly, Luna explained the risks she takes when openly discussing things that are rarely discussed “among faculty” and how she disrupts silences about equity concerns: “I think because we don’t talk about these things . . . our histories and our experiences and how they influence my identity as a professor, which is why I’m bringing this to the table to talk about [why] there’s no progress.” Despite being aware of the culture of silence, Luna insists on bringing up topics related to historical oppression, which other faculty are reluctant or discouraged to speak about.

Institutional Culture Shapes Faculty Collaborations

A theme that appeared across all sources of data was how institutional culture shaped faculty collaborations around equity and inclusion. Unsolicited comments about trust and professional safety emerged in all focus group sessions. Eileen, the most senior of our study participants offered the most direct quotes describing their “very unsafe working environment.” She shared that, at the time of the study, conversations like those advanced in the protocol were rare. Teacher educators “clump together” based on “who we follow”—if hired by a particular person, for example. These allegiances influence how students “can clump together too.” She expressed consternation about how fearful colleagues were being vulnerable with one another. For example, she explained that while she shares markers of difference that may not be so obvious to students (e.g., her disabilities), she followed by saying, “Now, would I do it with my peers? I’m not sure. [I worry] that it would be used against me. I never felt like that when I was teaching elementary.” Melodi shared the same concerns about comfortability in specific college and university settings. For example, she questioned how the ICC-TE would work when collaborating or working entirely online. Similarly, Luna stated that the predictive impact of the collaborative aspects of the ICC-TE in practice is dependent on the “context, the things that people are bringing to the table and how much they’re willing to listen and share and also be vulnerable.” When reflecting on why preservice teachers did not refer to her by her doctoral title, she considered how other teacher educators engaged her, a woman of color, in front of students. New to the institution, and aware of her precarity as a racialized woman, Melodi expressed trepidations about openly critiquing colleagues or the program. Relatedly, Boveda found that in our co-teaching efforts and post-instruction dialogues, she often initiated discussions about how racialized and gendered dynamics shaped class culture. Eileen used the phrase “chiseling away” several times when describing collaborations with reticent colleagues. This language indicates the additional labor involved for TEoC and otherwise minoritized educators when navigating their marginalization, “chiseling away and finding out more about the person you’re going to work with.”

Discussion

This article emphasizes how crucial TEoC were in the development of the ICC-TE. Our findings have implications for how TEoC can contribute to disrupting challenges in recruiting, retaining, and supporting a diverse special education teacher workforce. Participants indicated the need for more training on intersectionality, particularly for white faculty and mentor teachers working with diverse preservice teachers. They identified patterns in how PSToC were often identified for disciplinary actions or misunderstood within their program. Despite their repeated calls for more professional development, the TEoC expressed excitement about the use of the ICC-TE in their program and beyond.

As a result of the feedback from all TEoC, and the use of the protocol by these TEoC, we made the following changes to the protocol before publishing the ICC-TE online:

We added professional trajectory as a point of discussion in the protocol to allow collaborators to deepen their understanding of one another’s motivations and commitments that influence their approaches to teacher education.

We included prompts asking collaborators to consider how existing sources for getting to know students may reinforce stereotypes or assumptions, and to consider how to explore other ways to identify sociocultural markers of students.

We now prompt discussions about what is considered “appropriate engagement” and refined descriptions of co-construction of definitions and indicators of student success in Elements 2 and 4.

We realized the need for items that explicitly call on educators to name privileged or dominant sociocultural identities (e.g., whiteness) and describe the process of getting to know one another as iterative.

We revised Element 6 to make sure that minoritized collaborators are engaged ethically, prompting collaborators to consider if any member is tasked with taking on more of the uncomfortable aspects of collaborations.

All participants indicated the tremendous influences their institution had on the extent to which individuals—whether white or from non-dominant racialized groups—felt comfortable sharing their identities with other teacher education colleagues. For TEoC, the hesitation is not as prevalent when sharing aspects of their own identities with P-12 students and preservice teachers, but still influential. They agreed that the use of the ICC-TE, with the support of training of its proper usage, could help disrupt the reluctance of their colleagues to speak explicitly and in-depth about equity concerns within classrooms and across the teacher education program.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

As the expectations for educators to collaborate for inclusive P-12 schooling increases, the consideration of intersecting sociocultural identities is fundamental to substantive collaboration focused on equitable access and opportunities and meeting the needs of multiply-marginalized students. Cognitive interviews alone do not allow us to determine what impact, if any, the protocols would have on collaborative behaviors or the experiences of students. Although participants overwhelmingly responded that they recommend the use of the ICC-TE protocol, we recognize that self-reports are fairly poor predictors of future behaviors (Sheeran, 2002), and that contextual and interpersonal factors weigh heavily on decisions. Furthermore, the interviews were conducted in settings where power differences existed among the teacher educators in the room, including the authorial team. These power differences included race, years at the institution, additional roles (e.g., administrator, field placement coordinator, researcher), and rank and institutional status (e.g., clinical, tenured, tenure-earning). In navigating how we were developers and implementers of the ICC-TE, as well as researchers of this study, we understand how our reputation and relationship with colleagues may have shaped who volunteered to engage in this study and how they responded to interview questions.

The insights afforded by the researchers’ co-development and co-implementation of the ICC-TE were critical, especially considering the intercultural dynamic of our collaboration. In addition to categorizing types of collaborative teacher education programs (Pugach & Blanton, 2009), we recommend future research and theorizing about collaborative teacher education that explicitly accounts for the culture and morale shaping collegiality within the programs. An important next step will be piloting across programs to determine the extent to which it can support tangible and sustainable change. For example, participatory research could support the development of a compendium of resources to support protocol use and to provide scaffolding supports for teacher educators (Brydon-Miller, 1997; Cappella et al., 2011). These supports may lessen the burden on TEoC when it comes to (a) supporting and advocating for minoritized students, (b) accommodating colleagues who may see themselves as advocates for students but uncomfortable with discussing racism, ableism, and other systemic oppression, and (c) counteracting structural and classroom forces that influence the experiences of minoritized students. In turn, the ICC-TE has potential to improve the educational experiences of intersectionally-diverse educators and teacher candidates by destigmatizing difference and emphasizing ethical collegial dynamics.

Conclusion

In our study, we found that TEoC within a predominantly white institution were apt at identifying challenges and possibilities for sustaining and supporting PSToC. Since developing the ICC-TE, and in our own use of the instrument, we also found that without explicit prompts, white teacher educators were less likely to discuss or disclose salient aspects of their sociocultural identities. This includes not only “visible” markers such as race, but also less-obvious identities, such as class, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or religion. On the contrary, the TEoC in this study not only felt more comfortable discussing these aspects of themselves, but described how, throughout their career trajectory, their marginalized experiences were central to their persistence and commitment to the field. This stark distinction in a predominantly white education workforce produces a culture where speaking frankly about commitments to equity become acts of bravery, and where staying silent about embodied privileges and/or marginilzation shapes professional norms that center a white, nondisabled, cis-gendered, middle class workforce.

As students in the United States are becoming increasingly diverse (Taylor et al., 2020), university-based teacher education programs must attend to society’s changing demographics to help diversify a teaching workforce. This requires that teacher education programs focus on recruiting and retaining not only PSToC, but also TEoC who are empowered to offer affirming experiences that validate minoritized educators’ worldviews and support colleagues and preservice teachers to leverage their own lived experiences to address the complex needs of P-12 students. We offer current teacher educators the ICC-TE to facilitate collaborative dialogue and planning that unpack how intersectionality matters in teacher preparation and to disrupt structural inequities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the Faculty Fund for Teaching Excellence and Student Success at Arisona State University.

ORCID iD

Mildred Boveda

Notes

Author Biographies

Dr. Mildred Boveda is an Associate Professor of Special Education at Pensylvania State University. Drawing from Black feminist theory and collaborative teacher education research, she interrogates how sociocultural differences are framed across education communities to influence education policy and practice.

Dr. Andrea E. Weinberg is an Assistant Professor in the division of Teacher Preparation at Arizona State University. Her scholarship, teaching, and service are grounded in her commitment to high quality teaching and teacher education. Using participatory and interdisciplinary approaches, Weinberg explores the potential of pedagogies that promote transformational learning by coupling learning with meaningful action.

References

Ahmed

(2002). Racialized bodies. In Evans

Lee

(Eds.), Real bodies: A sociological introduction (pp. 46–62). Palgrave.

Alvarado

Salinas

Artiles

(2019). Teacher education and inclusivity. Oxford research Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.278

Annamma

S. A.

Connor

Ferri

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Arms

Bickett

Graf

(2008). Gender bias and imbalance: Girls in U.S. special education programmes. Gender and Education, 20(4), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802190180

Artiles

A. J.

(2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.10170S1742058X13000271

Bean

T. W.

Stevens

L. P.

(2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940220142343

Bhattacharya

(2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231747

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Boveda

(2014). Teacher education reform initiatives and special education: Convergence, divergence, and missed opportunities. Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center, University of Florida. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/LS-3_FINAL_09-20-14.pdf

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Boveda

(2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118778539

10.

Boudett

K. P.

City

E. A.

(2014). Meeting wise: Making the most of collaborative time for educators. Harvard Education Press.

11.

Boveda

(2016). Beyond special and general education as identity markers: The development and validation of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ understanding of the effects of intersecting sociocultural identities [FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations]. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/2998

12.

Boveda

Aronson

B. A.

(2019). Special education preservice teachers, intersectional diversity, and the privileging of emerging professional identities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519838621

13.

Boveda

McCray

E. D.

(2020). Writing (for) our lives: Black feminisms, interconnected guidance, and qualitative research in special education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(6), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1771465

14.

Boveda

Reyes

Aronson

(2019). Disciplined to access the general education curriculum: Girls of color, disabilities, and specialized education programming. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(4), 405–425.

15.

Boveda

Weinberg

A. E.

(2020a). Facilitating intersectionally conscious collaborations in physics education. The Physics Teacher, 58, 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0002066

16.

Boveda

Weinberg

A. E.

(2020b). Intersectionally conscious collaboration protocol: Teacher educators version1.figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13252085.v4

17.

Bowleg

(2008). When Black+lesbian+woman≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(5–6), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z

18.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://www-tandfonline-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

19.

Brownell

M. T.

Griffin

Leko

M. M.

Stephens

(2011). Improving collaborative teacher education research: Creating tighter linkages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411404570

20.

Brydon-Miller

(1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02454.x

21.

Busey

C. L.

Waters

(2016). Who are we? The demographic and professional identity of social studies teacher educators. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 40, 71–83. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2015.07.001

22.

Cappella

Jackson

D. R.

Bilal

Hamre

B. K.

Soulé

(2011). Bridging mental health and education in urban elementary schools: Participatory research to inform intervention development. School Psychology Review, 40(4), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087526

23.

Caspary

Ammah-Tagoe

Cannady

Greenwald

(2017). Developing protocols to support collaborative teacher reflection and professional learning for science argument writing. SRI Education.

24.

Cioè-Peña

(2017). The intersectional gap: How bilingual students in the United States are excluded from inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 906–919. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1296032

25.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203900055

26.

Collins

P. H.

(2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142

27.

Connor

(2006). Michael’s story: “I get into so much trouble just by walking”: Narrative knowing and life at the intersections of learning disability, race and class. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500533942

28.

Connor

(2008). Urban narratives: Portraits in progress, life at the intersection of learning disability, race, & social class (Vol. 5). Peter Lang.

29.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.

30.

D’Ardenne

(2015). Developing interview protocols. In Collins

(Ed.), Cognitive interviewing practice (pp. 101–125). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473910102.n5

31.

Dixson

A. D.

Dingus

J. E.

(2007). Tyranny of the majority: Re-enfranchisement of African-American teacher educators teaching for democracy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701630775

32.

Easton

L. B.

(2009). Protocols for professional learning (The professional learning community series). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

33.

El Kadri

M. S.

Roth

W. M.

(2015). Co-teaching/co-generative dialogues in a teaching education program as room for agency and new forms of participation: “I found Jesus in [writing] the paper.” Teacher Development, 19(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.976715

34.

Enterline

Cochran-Smith

Ludlow

L. H.

Mitescu

(2008). Learning to teach for social justice: Measuring change in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator, 4, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880802430361

35.

Erevelles

Minear

(2010). Unspeakable offenses: Untangling race and disability in discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 4(4), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880802430361

36.

Fendler

(2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X032003016

37.

Ferri

B. A.

Connor

D. J.

(2010). “I was the special ed. girl”: Urban working-class young women of colour. Gender and Education, 22(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802612688

38.

Flynn

J. E.

Kemp

A. T.

Page

C. S.

(2013). Promoting philosophical diversity and exploring racial differences in beliefs about the purposes of education. The Journal of the Texas Alliance of Black School Educators, 5(1), 53–71.

39.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.5555/muvo.13.2.yv7822w58116kw42

40.

Goodwin

A. L.

(2004). Exploring the perspectives of teacher educators of color: What do they bring to teacher education? Issues in Teacher Education, 13(2), 7–24.

41.

Hernández-Saca

D. I.

Martin

Meacham

(2020). The hidden elephant is oppression: Shaming, mobbing, and institutional betrayals within the academy—Finding strength in collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 16(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1727430

42.

Husain

Wardle

Kenny

Balajaran

Collins

(2013). Examining machine player behaviour: A qualitative exploration [Report prepared for the Responsible Gambling Trust]. https://natcen.ac.uk/media/205544/exploring-machine-characteristics-report-final-2-.pdf

43.

Krippendorff

(2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.

44.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275917

45.

Lake

A. A.

Speed

Brookes

Heaven

Adamson

A. J.

Moynihan

Corbett

McColl

(2007). Development of a series of patient information leaflets for constipation using a range of cognitive interview techniques: LIFELAX. BMC Health Services Research, 7(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-3

46.

Liang

Zhang

(2009). Indicators to evaluate pre-service teachers’ cultural competence. Evaluation & Research in Education, 22(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790903082354

47.

Liasidou

(2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability & Society, 28(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710012

48.

Ludwig

Kirshstein

Sidana

Ardila-Rey

Bae

(2010). An emerging picture of the teacher preparation pipeline. American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=492&ref=rle

49.

McCall

McHatton

P. A.

Shealey

M. W.

(2014). Special education teacher candidate assessment: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413512684

50.

McCall

Skrtic

(2009). Intersectional needs politics: A policy frame for the wicked problem of disproportionality. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 3–23.

51.

McDonald

J. P.

Mohr

Dichter

McDonald

E. C.

(2015). The power of protocols: An educator’s guide to better practice. Teachers College Press.

52.

Merryfield

M. M.

(2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00004-4

53.

Miles

A. L.

Nishida

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

(2017). An open letter to White disability and ableist institutions of higher education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5997

54.

Milne

Scantlebury

Blonstein

Gleason

(2011). Coteaching and disturbances: Building a better system for learning to teach science. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9172-7

55.

Natapoff

(1995). Anatomy of a debate: Intersectionality and equality for Deaf children from Non-English speaking homes. Journal of Law & Education, 24(2), 271–278.

56.

National School Reform Faculty. (n.d.). NSRF protocols and activities. . .from A to Z. https://nsrfharmony.org/protocols/

57.

Picower

Kohli

(Eds.). (2017). Confronting racism in teacher education: Counternarratives of critical practice. Taylor & Francis.

58.

Pohan

C. A.

Aguilar

T. E.

(2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312038001159

59.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

(2009). A framework for conducting research on collaborative teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.007

60.

Roth

Tobin

Zimmermann

Bryant

Davis

(2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: An activity-theoretical study of learning in coteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10018

61.

School Reform Initiative. (n.d.). Protocols and resources. https://www.schoolreforminitiative.org/protocols/

62.

Selkrig

Keamy

(2015). Promoting a willingness to wonder: Moving from congenial to collegial conversations that encourage deep and critical reflection for teacher educators. Teachers and Teaching, 21(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.969104

63.

Sheeran

(2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003

64.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916668957

65.

Smyth

(1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312029002268

66.

Souto-Manning

(2019). Toward praxically-just transformations: Interrupting racism in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1550608

67.

Suh

Hinton

(2015). Mirroring ourselves: Teacher educators of color reading multicultural texts. Issues in Teacher Education, 24(2), 23–42.

68.

Taylor

Turk

J. M.

Chessman

H. M.

Espinosa

L. L.

(2020). Race and ethnicity in higher education: 2020 Supplement. American Council on Education. http://1xfsu31b52d33idlp13twtos-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/REHE-2020-final.pdf

69.

Thomas

Macnab

(2019). Intersectionality, diversity, community and inclusion: Untangling the knots. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1645892

70.

Tobin

Roth

W. M.

(2006). Teaching to learn: A view from the field (Vol. 4). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/SCE.20250

71.

Villegas

A. M.

Ciotoli

Lucas

(2017). A framework for preparing teachers for classrooms that are inclusive of all students. In Florian

Pantić

(Eds.), Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling (pp. 133–148). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54389-5

72.

Waitoller

F. R.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.006

73.

Weinberg

A. E.

Sebald

Stevenson

C. A.

Wakefield

(2020). Toward conceptual clarity: A scoping review of coteaching in teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 55(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1657214

74.

Young

K. S.

(2011). Combined credential programs: Pedagogic, practical, and ideological concerns. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 7–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23479690

75.

Young

K. S.

(2016). How student teachers (don’t) talk about race: An intersectional analysis. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.831826